However, there's nothing you can do about them.

Sounds like you've thought of nothing and you're all out of ideas . There's quite a few things that can be done, most prominently rent control. I'm not sure how you figured that out...

Also to add, one does not get to choose what their own preferences are, so there cannot be free will. Our preferences come from genetics and knowledge passed down to us from generation to generation /culture. No where is there an individual deciding all these things.

[removed]

This brought some more tranquility... I think you've got something there. Thanks for the clarity.

Your argument rests on four premises, which are not universally agreed upon as stipulation or truth. In your worldview, and perhaps the worldview of most people (although neither are relevant without being universal), the premises you numbered 1-4 may be accepted as truth.

That does not mean everyone accepts those premises, and believes suffering to be bad or pleasure to be good. Hedonism, epicureanism, and other pleasure-seeking and suffering-avoiding ideologies are exalted by some and condemned by others. With words as nebulous as “good” and “bad” I’m not sure how you can definitively claim “pleasure to be good” and “suffering to be bad,” let alone expect everyone to subscribe to those notions.

Your other two premises also suffer from the vagueness of words such as “good” and “bad,” but even without those deficiencies your argument holds no water. Assuming everyone believes your premises numbered 1-4, or that said premises are somehow a universal truth regardless of the beliefs or individuals is not substantiated by any evidence. Your feelings that “suffering is bad, pleasure is good” may be relevant to your beliefs, but are far from objective truth.

Note: this is not a defense of having children or choosing not to. I think there are legitimate arguments for both sides; I do not think this is an example.

Your second part ignores the main reasons people don't want to leave -knowledge of the area, friends and family nearby, sense of community, having a job in the neighborhood. Calling it stubbornness and family heirloom sentiment (not quite sure what that means) really misses the mark almost completely.

It wouldn’t give them the right to have gains preserved for them. That’s not a right I have heard from any libertarian theory. So long as the lockean proviso is met, there is no duty to benefit the future. And future people wouldn’t accept such a lottery.

[removed]

[removed]

> You don't have to be vulnerable. It's safe and easy. You're satisfying a need, which neglects the growth of offline social interaction. Which is why so many

The logic of being energized by being around people and then needing to be alone to recharge is flawed.

I do agree that most people are not simply defined as one or the other. For example I get energized hanging out with my friends in person for a certain amount of time but after a while it becomes a strain. I need a break after hanging out with them before doing it again.

Social media is not actually replacing interaction between people. It is a separate entity (algorithm) to interact with that partially fills the role of other people. Instagram is where people make up their dream lives and pretend it is reality. Facebook used to show your friends activities but it is not just algorithm feeding you whatever you want just like tik tok. Snapchat is the only one that has interaction between people.

I think it is a major societal problem that people aren't forced to be socially uncomfortable for brief periods. I believe that is what solidifies people as who they are and creates confidence.

[removed]

Uh I guess I have no idea

The sketchy places you don't want to go at night have low rents as a result.

As a result, young people and diverse communities who (traditionally) have less free capital, and start up businesses (particularly restaurants) can afford to live there.

The abundance of young people drives bars and other hang-out oriented businesses to move in.

The new bars and restaurants draw attention from a more affluent community.

"Cool" people recognize the potential in the neighborhood start to move in, driving more investment in the growing cultural scene.

Now a thriving neighborhood with things to do and see and eat, "rich white people" move to be close to, what is now becoming, one of the most expensive neighborhoods in the city.

Prices go up. Poor people leave. Restaurants cant afford rent and are replaced by national chains. The neighborhood completes its cycle from sketchy to boring.

Such is the way of things. Does it suck? Sure. Am I going to stop looking for the newest ethnically authentic restaurants to try food at? Am I going to not go to the cool new bar my friend heard about? No.

This is the problem with this sort of argument. Unfortunately there are things that just...aren't great. However, there's also nothing you can do about them. Next we'll have an article about how badly designed human knees are. Well...its true. It's not an ideal piece of equipment. That's not going to stop the next generation being born with knees.

Ah, but procreating is inherently immoral. I wanted to discuss one of my favourite arguments in favour of antinatalism, but the person defending natalism deleted their comments shortly before I had a chance to respond. Guess I’ll just leave my reply here.

For starters: you cannot possibly prevent suffering in anyone’s life, really. You can only attempt at reducing it. No matter how much love, affection and protection you provide for your child in an attempt to ensure they live their best life, there will be always a possibility of them getting kidnapped, raped, murdered, otherwise violently harmed, or inevitably dying of either chronic illness or senescence if they somehow avoid all of the above. Therefore, you are to blame for imposing the capacity to suffer on your child (that would otherwise not exist and accordingly not suffer).

Now, bringing someone into existence generates both good and bad experiences, suffering and pleasure, whereas not doing so generates neither suffering nor pleasure. We both agree that the absence of suffering is good. The happiness they experience throughout life is also good; however, a lack thereof is only a negative factor for the already existing, because only they can have the negative experience of deprivation. Therefore, a lack of pleasure for the unborn child is not bad in a moral sense.

To simplify and, hopefully, systematise this for the experiencing individual:

1. The presence of pain (suffering) is bad.
2. The presence of pleasure (happiness) is good.
3. The absence of pain is good, even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone.
4. The absence of pleasure is not bad unless there is somebody for whom this absence is a deprivation.

And an additional dichotomy that necessarily follows from these conclusions, if I may:

1. There is no moral obligation to produce a child even if we could be sure that it will be very happy throughout its life.
2. There is a moral obligation not to produce a child if it can be foreseen that it will be unhappy.

We can clearly see that even with the grossly unrealistic assumption that the amount of happiness in one’s life quantitatively outweighs the amount of suffering, the ethical choice is weighed in favor of non-procreation.

That's not true, we could also prevent the rich people from moving. Or we could section off areas and limit property ownership there to only people who belong to certain groups, perhaps certain income brackets. Or we could distribute housing by some method other than money, like a lottery or a beauty contest.

Whenever you say, "the only way..." you're running into dangerous territory.

[removed]

> libertarianism adopts a person-affecting view, whereby the moral status of an act depends on the rights and consent only of affected living people.

Is this an axiom or a conclusion? If axiom, it is a strawman. If conclusion, a non sequitur.

> To give future people rights under libertarianism would already be accepting a hypothetical social contract since future people cannot actually consent.

This is a non sequitur. Pure libertarian principles confer rights and obligations to people where it might be known who the victim will be, and exactly what will happen to him, but it might be temporarily impossible to communicate with him. Or it might be known that some person or other will be the victim of an act, but it might be impossible to find out which person. This naturally extends to future generations.

You may also consider the scifi case where a man does not exist today, but will miraculously exist tomorrow. In such a case, it is immoral to build a trap that would kill the man when he materializes.

Possible through QM with GR no?

The only way to prevent gentrification is to forbid the poor from moving. That is prison.

Shit, too late for that.

Capitalism cannot afford philosophy. Or morality. Or ethics.

>+ objective and agent-relative:

It is better for John not to become a lawyer and pursue a career as a clarinetist. John would probably not even pass the bar exams and the profession would invariably burn him out. He doesn't have the personality for it.

Woah, this definitely sneaks in valuing well-being. If we replaced it with "challenge seeking" or "self-development", we'd have a different ruling. And how do you decide between which values are truly objective, well-being or challenge? I actually discuss this issue in my last section here (although my thoughts need some more fleshing out)

This combination is where it's at.

>How are we to judge those deviations to be free of anything?

We can't.

Remember, I'm responding to the 'what if' of 'what if there was truely random swerve'. If there was true random swerve, then I could see how evolutionary processes could exploit that. I'm not say we can determine whether or not atoms have truely random swerve.

[deleted]